So much wrong

Say what you want about the Discovery Institute; they are prolific! Evolution News & Views alone publishes several articles a day. I’m lucky if I can crank out three a week, and I try to limit the proportion that are about cdesign proponentsists being wrong. It’s a continual temptation, because those posts are easier to write than, say, digging into a peer-reviewed article. PZ promises me that blogging on FtB will eventually earn me enough to buy a cup of coffee, but I have a job. All of this means that I have to let a lot of big, juicy targets sail by. So, quickly:


Thank you, Michael Denton; no evolutionary biologist ever considered the possibility that not everything is adaptive. To answer your question, some aspects of leaf shape are adaptive, some are not. Next.

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.06.02

Another example of “it’s complicated, so it must be designed,” this one contains the gem,

…we know design when we see it.

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.09.39

Well…I concede this one, though I would argue that ID’s “excellent decade” is exaggerated. People should stop saying ID is dead; it isn’t, and it’s not likely to die soon.

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.12.48

I’ve already mentioned the Discovery Institute’s goal of unnecessarily prolonging human suffering.

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.17.52

Except the ones that aren’t. David Klinghoffer needs to read more science.

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.19.14

Beg the question much?

Screenshot 2016-04-15 08.21.11

Persecution complex?

3% battery left.

Leave a Reply